I don't know how much is known about the POWER being applied competitively by States like Utah, but I think it may be worth measuring accurately.
"On March 25th of this year, Gov. Gary Herbert signed into law the Utah Legal Tender Act, making gold and silver coin legal tender in Utah. Nearly six months to the day after that ground breaking event, more than 150 people gathered in Salt Lake City to deliberate over the future of monetary reform."
Not only Utah, there are other States moving the same direction, which is (if I am not mistaken) a move away from the Fraud known as National Debt.
Anyone with a working brain, willfully applied, even a child, can see that The National Debt is a Fraud, a complete absurdity, a Joke that is being played upon those who are foolish enough to allow themselves to be victims to this confidence scheme, which has been going on since 1788: by the way.
This is a Joke:
That is even more absurd, as a cruel Joke, because it is The Official Joke.
Here is another example of The Official Joke:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
"shall not be questioned" is a thought crime?
Whose idea is it to turn due process of law, due everyone without exception, into a thought crime?
That is an official Joke, and it may be being played on you, so look in the mirror and find out.
Other States are also not playing around with the Official Joke, and an example of that NEWS can be found with a Web Search on words like States, Gold, Money, Competition.
Of all the state proposals circulating right now, Republican-controlled states including South Carolina, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana have the best chance of passing their proposed bills this year, said American Principles Project's Danker. If just one or two states implement an alternative currency, it could have a Domino effect, he said.
"I think we could get a couple passed in this legislative session, and that would show this is mainstream, popular and it would be a justification for more of the risk-averse states for doing this," he said.
There are, of course, many people who think the recent push for alternative state currencies should be stopped in its tracks. David Parsley, a professor of economics and finance at Vanderbilt University, said he thinks state-issued currencies are a "terrible" idea.
"Having 50 Feds" could debase the U.S. dollar and even potentially lead the country into default, he said. "The single currency in the United States is working just fine," said Parsley. "I have no idea why anyone would want to destroy something so successful -- unless they actually wanted to destroy the country."
Ending the FED ends The IRS too.
In case you didn't know (or in case I am wrong):
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information? Is it not well known that what would be a proper tax in one state would be grievous in another? The gentleman who hath favored us with a eulogium in favor of this system, must, after all the encomiums he has been pleased to bestow upon it, acknowledge that our federal representatives must be unacquainted with the situation of their constituents. Sixty-five members cannot possibly know the situation and circumstances of all the inhabitants of this immense continent. When a certain sum comes to be taxed, and the mode of levying to be fixed, they will lay the tax on that article which will be most productive and easiest in the collection, without consulting the real circumstances or convenience of a country, with which, in fact, they cannot be sufficiently acquainted.
The mode of levying taxes is of the utmost consequence; and yet here it is to be determined by those who have neither knowledge of our situation, nor a common interest with us, nor a fellow-feeling for us. T...
The Joke being played on you guys, anyone still believing in the fairytale of National Debt, was started by people like Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton, who were on the side of Monarchy, or "Nationalism" which is just another False Front for their real goal, which is a Single Legal Money Monopoly POWER.
People like George Mason and Patrick Henry knew the score, and the Joke being played on you includes the Joke that The Founding Fathers where ONE MONOPOLY GROUP.
The Founding Fathers were not ONE MONOPOLY GROUP, there was a very significant split between Group A and Group B as such:
Monarchists, Federalists, Nationalists, Monopolists, Criminals, Liars, Thieves, and those who worked to gain criminal control over their version of Government.
Democratic Federated Republicans, Common Law practitioners, Rebels, Revolutionaries, who were called by the FALSE NAME of Anti-Federalists.
If you are fooled, how can you know?
Keep paying your "Federal" Income Taxes with your Fraud Money from The "Federal" Reserve?
What ever happened to Common Sense?
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: